Latest news with #PIRG
Fast Company
16-07-2025
- Science
- Fast Company
Americans throw out 5.7 disposable vapes every second
The majority of e-cigarette sales now come in the form of disposable vapes, meaning that when someone has taken the last puff, that vape—and its lithium ion battery and plastic casing—go right into the trash. Americans now throw away an incredible number of these disposable vapes: nearly 500,000 every day, or about 5.7 vapes per second. That number comes from the latest vape waste report from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), which looked at 2023 data. And vape waste is increasing, the public advocacy group found. In 2022, U.S. PIRG documented that Americans threw out 4.5 disposable vapes per second. Disposable vapes are a 'particularly insidious' form of pollution for a few reasons, says Lucas Gutterman, the Designed to Last campaign director with PIRG. For one, these devices contain nicotine, a toxic chemical that can leach into water and soil, harming wildlife and ecosystems. They're also made of plastic that isn't recyclable, and which also spreads toxins and microplastics into the environment. Increasingly, disposable vapes double as digital gadgets, with screens that show animations or include built-in games or speakers to play music. That means all this trash is a type of electronic waste, so each disposable vape tossed is like 'throwing away miniature computers after a few days of use,' Gutterman says. Those lithium ion batteries in disposable vapes are made using critical minerals that require mining. Laptops, cellphones, and electric vehicles all use lithium ion batteries too. The amount of lithium used in the batteries of disposable vapes sold every year weighs nearly 30 tons, according to U.S. PIRG—equivalent to the amount of lithium needed to create 3,350 EV batteries. Mining is also tied to human rights abuses, and in 2023, a TikToker explained in a viral video that she was quitting vaping as a way to help people in Congo, which currently supplies 70% of the world's mined cobalt. When disposable vapes are tossed into the trash and make their way to recycling and waste facilities, those lithium ion batteries can also cause fires because the devices get caught and crushed in machinery. The report estimates that disposable vapes cause $95 million of damage from waste facility fires each year. When disposal vapes don't go into these facilities, they can pollute the environment directly. If a disposable vape is tossed on the street, it can be swept into a storm drain, travel through streams and rivers, and end up in the ocean or along the coast. Predictably, disposable vapes are becoming a dominant source of beach pollution: According to the Surfrider Foundation, from 2021 to 2024 volunteers have seen a 150% increase in vapes among litter collected during beach cleanups. Disposable vapes are a serious threat, says Kelsey Lamp, oceans campaign director with the Environment America Research & Policy Center, because they include three types of waste in one: 'They're hazardous waste, since they contain nicotine and heavy metals; they're electronic waste with batteries and circuits; and they're plastic waste that never biodegrades,' she says. Studies have found that vape liquids decrease the hatching success of fish embryos and cause DNA damage, among other effects, plus the plastic casings can both carry toxins and break down into microplastics. Some states are taking action against disposable vapes. California banned flavored tobacco products, which led to a 52% decrease in disposable vape sales. Massachusetts also banned flavored e-cigarettes, resulting in a 74% drop in disposable vape sales. But Lamp and U.S. PIRG urge legislators to take more action and ban disposable vapes across the country. 'We wouldn't dump 30 tons of lithium directly into our ocean. We wouldn't pour thousands of pounds of nicotine into our waterways. Yet that's exactly what we're doing by allowing disposable vapes to pollute our waterways,' Lamp says. 'Our oceans are already under pressure from rising temperatures, overfishing, and land-based pollution. We cannot afford to add this entirely preventable source of toxic waste to the mix.'
Miami Herald
14-07-2025
- Health
- Miami Herald
Insurers fight state laws restricting surprise ambulance bills
Nicole Silva's 4-year-old daughter was headed to a relative's house near the southern Colorado town of La Jara when a vehicle T-boned the car she was riding in. A cascade of ambulance rides ensued - a ground ambulance to a local hospital, an air ambulance to Denver, and another ground ambulance to Children's Hospital Colorado. Silva's daughter was on Medicaid, which was supposed to cover the cost of the ambulances. But one of the three ambulance companies, Northglenn Ambulance, a public company since acquired by a private one, sent Silva's bill to a debt collector. It was for $2,181.60, which grew to more than $3,000 with court fees and interest, court records show. The preschool teacher couldn't pay, and the collector garnished Silva's wages. "It put us so behind on bills - our house payment, electric, phone bills, food for the kids," said Silva, whose daughter recovered fully from the 2015 crash. "It took away from everything." Some state legislators are looking to curb bills like the one she received - surprise bills for ground ambulance rides. When an ambulance company charges more than an insurer is willing to pay, patients can be left with a big bill they probably had no choice in. States are trying to fill a gap left by the federal No Surprises Act, which covers air ambulances but not ground services, including ambulances that travel by road and water. This year, Utah and North Dakota joined 18 other states that have passed protections against surprise billing for such rides. Those protections often include setting a minimum for insurers to pay out if someone they cover needs a ride. But the sticking point is where to set that bar. Legislation in Colorado and Montana stalled this year because policymakers worried that forcing insurers to pay more would lead to higher health coverage costs for everyone. Surprise ambulance bills are one piece of a health care system that systematically saddles Americans with medical debt, straining their finances, preventing them from accessing care, and increasing racial disparities, as KFF Health News has reported. "If people are hesitating to call the ambulance because they're worried about putting a huge financial burden on their family, it means we're going to get stroke victims who don't get to the hospital on time," said Patricia Kelmar, who directs health care campaigns at PIRG, a national consumer advocacy group. "It means that person who's worried it might be a heart attack won't call." The No Surprises Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump in 2020, says that for most emergency services, patients can be billed for out-of-network care only for the same amount they would have been billed if it were in-network. Like doctors or hospitals, ambulance companies can contract with insurers, making them in-network. Those that don't remain out-of-network. But unlike when making an appointment with a doctor or planning a surgery, a patient generally can't choose the ambulance company that will respond to their 911 call. This means they can get hit with large out-of-network bills. Federal lawmakers punted on including ground ambulances, in part because of the variety of business models - from private companies to volunteer fire departments - and a lack of data on how much rides cost. Instead, Congress created an advisory committee that issued recommendations last year. Its overarching conclusion - that patients shouldn't be stuck in the crossfire between providers and payers - was not controversial or partisan. In Colorado, a measure aimed at expanding protections from surprise ambulance bills got a unanimous thumbs-up in both legislative chambers. Colorado had previously passed a law protecting people from surprise bills from private ambulance companies. This new measure was aimed at providing similar protections against bills from public ambulance services and for transfers between hospitals. "We knew it had bipartisan support, but there are some people that vote no on everything," said a pleasantly surprised Karen McCormick, a Democratic state representative. A less pleasant surprise came later, when Gov. Jared Polis, who is also a Democrat, vetoed it, citing the fear of rising premiums. States can do only so much on this issue, because state laws apply only to state-regulated health plans. That leaves out a lot of workers. According to a 2024 national survey by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News, 63% of people who work for private employers and get health insurance through their jobs have self-funded plans, which aren't state-regulated. "It's why we need a federal ambulance protection law, even if we passed 50 state laws," Kelmar said. According to data from the Colorado secretary of state's office, the only lobbying groups registered as "opposing" the bill were Anthem and UnitedHealth Group, plus UnitedHealth subsidiaries Optum and UnitedHealthcare. As soon as the legislative session ended in May, Kevin McFatridge, executive director of the Colorado Association of Health Plans, a trade group representing health insurance companies in the state, sent a letter to the governor requesting a veto, with an estimate that the legislation would result in premiums rising 0.4%. The Colorado bill said local governments - such as cities, counties, or special districts - would set rates. "We are in a much better place by not having local entities set their own rates," McFatridge told KFF Health News. "That's almost like the fox managing the henhouse." Jack Hoadley, an emeritus research professor with Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy, said it isn't clear whether state laws approved elsewhere are raising premiums, or if so by how much. Hoadley said Washington state is expected to come out with an impact analysis of its law in a couple of years. The national trade association for insurance companies declined to provide a comment for this article. Instead, AHIP forwarded letters that its leaders submitted to lawmakers in Ohio, West Virginia, and North Dakota this year opposing measures in each state to set base ambulance rates. AHIP leadership described the proposals as inflated, government-mandated pricing that would reduce insurers' chance to negotiate fair prices. Ultimately, the association warned, the proposed minimums would increase health care costs. In Montana, legislators were considering a minimum reimbursement for ground ambulances of 400% of what Medicare pays, or at a set local rate if one exists. The proposal was sponsored by two Republicans and backed by ambulance companies. Health insurers successfully lobbied against it, arguing that the price was too steep. Sarah Clerget, a lobbyist representing AHIP, told Montana lawmakers in a legislative hearing that it's already hard to get ambulance companies to go in-network with insurers, "because folks are going to need ambulance care regardless of whether their insurance company will cover it." She said the state's proposal would leave those paying for health coverage with the burden of the new price. "None of us like our insurance rates to move," Republican state Sen. Mark Noland said during a legislative meeting as a committee tabled the bill. He equated the proposed minimum to a mandate that could lead to people having to pay more for health coverage for an important but nonetheless niche service. Colorado's governor was similarly focused on premiums. Polis said in his veto letter that the legislation would have raised premiums between 73 cents and $2.15 per member per month. "I agree that filling this gap in enforcement is crucial to saving people money on health care," he wrote. "However, those cost savings are outweighed in my view by the premium increases." Isabel Cruz, policy director at the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, which supported the bill, said that even if premiums did rise, Coloradans might be OK with the change. After all, she said, they'd be trading the threat of a big ambulance bill for the price of half a cup of coffee per month. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Engadget
08-07-2025
- Business
- Engadget
The military might finally win the right to repair
Senators Tim Sheehy and Elizabeth Warren have introduced a bipartisan bill to enshrine a right to repair for military equipment. The legislation, called the 'Warrior Right to Repair Act,' would codify the right-to-repair provisions that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth put in place through the Army Transformation and Acquisition Reform memorandum from April 30. The Department of Defense has not been immune from restrictive practices set forth by manufacturers, and much like the average consumer, has been hamstrung in its ability to repair its own equipment by clauses in its purchase agreements. According to the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), the current system leads to excessive repair and sustainment costs , and can even impede military readiness . 'When our neighbors, friends and family serve in our military, we expect them to get what they need to do their jobs as safely as possible," PIRG Federal Legislative Director Isaac Bowers wrote regarding the newly introduced bill. "Somehow, that hasn't included the materials and information they need to repair equipment they rely on. It's time we fixed that." A recent PIRG poll showed that enshrining the right to repair for the military is supported by an overwhelming majority of the American electorate, with almost 75 percent of respondents supporting the initiative. The right-to-repair movement has been in an ongoing battle between consumers, manufacturers and lawmakers. States like Oregon have passed their own right-to-repair laws, though manufacturers continue to run afoul of regulation. Senator Warren introduced a similar bill in 2024 without a Republican co-sponsor, but it was never brought to a vote.
Time of India
03-07-2025
- Time of India
Consumer group slams Microsoft for leaving Windows 10 users stuck without options
Microsoft is ending support for Windows 10 in October 2025. After that, users won't get security updates unless they pay or pick special options. One option Microsoft gave is to pay $30 for one more year of security updates, till October is a first-time offer for regular users, and not everyone is happy about it, as mentioned in the report by TechRadar. Now, Microsoft added two new ways to avoid paying $30: Use the Windows Backup app to save your data to OneDrive. Or use 1,000 Microsoft Rewards points instead of cash. But the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) says that's not good enough. PIRG fights against tech waste and supports longer product life, according to the report. Many old PCs can't upgrade to Windows 11 PIRG's Lucas Rockett Gutterman says 400 million PCs can't upgrade to Windows 11. These older PCs will be 'junked' just because they don't meet Windows 11's strict hardware rules. Gutterman believes Microsoft should do more, like give longer support for Windows 10 automatically or make Windows 11 work on older PCs, as per the report by TechRadar. ALSO READ: Trump brags about planting Elon Musk drug abuse story in NYT — 'I made that happen' He also said most people feel confused and frustrated. 'Users feel yanked around,' and these updates won't fix the bigger problem. Tech expert Darren Allan thinks adding the Backup app option is a positive step. But it's still not enough to solve the long-term problem, according to the reports. Live Events Experts say one year of support isn't enough He points out businesses get 3 years of extra updates, while consumers only get one. That's unfair, especially with so many PCs still working fine. He suggests Microsoft should think about giving 2–3 more years of updates to consumers. Even if ads were added in return, it might be worth it, according to the report by TechRadar. The bigger issue is preventing e-waste, says both PIRG and Darren Allan. Millions of devices could end up in landfills even though they still work well. Conclusion: PIRG and experts agree Microsoft must take more responsibility. A single year of support and minor options aren't enough to stop a major tech waste crisis, as per the reports. FAQs Q1. What will happen to Windows 10 after October 2025? Microsoft will stop free security updates for Windows 10 after October 2025, unless users pay or choose new options. Q2. Can old PCs upgrade to Windows 11? Most older PCs can't upgrade to Windows 11 due to strict hardware rules set by Microsoft.
The Verge
02-06-2025
- Business
- The Verge
Texas Right to Repair bill passes, heads to the governor's desk
Texas moved closer to becoming the next state with a right to repair law on the books, as the state Senate unanimously voted 31 - 0 to finalize HB 2963 this weekend. It would require manufacturers to make spare parts, manuals, and necessary tools available for equipment sold or used in the country's second most populated state. As more states have passed right to repair laws, we've seen repair options and information becoming more widely available nationwide from companies like Apple and Samsung. If the bill is signed into law by Texas Governor Greg Abbott, that will add another significant market with these requirements in place. A press release from the United States Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), which has pushed for repairability laws nationwide, noted that this would make Texas the ninth state with a right to repair rule, and the seventh with a version that includes consumer electronics. It follows New York, Colorado, Minnesota, California, Oregon, Maine, and most recently, Washington, and would be the first state on the list with a Republican-controlled government. 'More repair means less waste. Texas produces some 621,000 tons of electronic waste per year, which creates an expensive and toxic mess. Now, thanks to this bipartisan win, Texans can fix that,' said Environment Texas executive director Luke Metzger.
